Futurologist, Fake News and Histories
Last week’s strategy: The Specificity Illusion
Detail = credibility.
Anyone try it? Did you replace vague words with specific numbers, dates, or names?
Week 6 gave you a name for the problem: the Tragedy of the Commons.
Individual action can’t fix structural problems. Carbon pricing, cap-and-trade, green taxes — these are attempts to redesign the incentives so the system stops rewarding destruction.
But you also saw that even well-designed policies get blocked — by politics, by money, by power.
So what happens when even the truth itself is contested?
Last week: “Why don’t we build better, and whose fault is that?”
This week: “What if people disagree on whether there’s even a problem?”
The ultimate structural barrier: narrative control.
Climate denial, historical revisionism, manufactured doubt — these aren’t just “misinformation.” They’re strategic tools deployed to protect structural incentives.
Your toolkit: Spectacle Formula → Complexity → System Boundaries → Timing → Built Environment → Structural Incentives → now: Epistemic Humility.
They knew. They lied. The graph proves it.
PRO-CLIMATE
= Scientific Consensus Matters
= “Denialism is dangerous”
PRO-DEVELOPMENT
= Question Everything
= “Skepticism is healthy”
| PRO-CLIMATE | PRO-DEVELOPMENT |
|---|---|
| Trust the science | Question the models |
| Expert consensus | Healthy skepticism |
| Urgency requires action | Uncertainty requires caution |
| Denialism is funded | Alarmism is funded too |
| Facts over feelings | Predictions often fail |
This tension defines debates about truth, expertise, and action.
Wiki Page on Moon Landing Conspiracy
Mideval Warm Period (Wikipedia)
Fact + Human Story + Stakes = Spectacle
Weak
“Misinformation is a problem”
Better
“Oil companies funded climate denial for 40 years”
Spectacle
“ExxonMobil’s own scientists predicted climate change in 1982. Then the company spent millions telling you it wasn’t real. They knew. They lied. You paid.”
1977 — Exxon’s own scientists warn: fossil fuels will warm the planet.
1989 — Exxon funds the Global Climate Coalition to manufacture doubt.
2023 — Harvard study confirms: Exxon’s 1977 projections were remarkably accurate.
They knew. They chose profit. You inherited the bill.
Kurzgesagt (~10 min). The answer to “who is responsible?” changes completely depending on your metric — per-capita, annual, or cumulative. The narrative shapes the blame.
Don’t say: “Climate denial is funded by fossil fuel companies.”
Say: “The same playbook. The same PR firms. Tobacco companies denied cancer for decades. Oil companies denied warming for decades. You were the mark both times.”
Don’t say: “Trust the scientific consensus.”
Say: “97% of climate scientists agree. That’s the same consensus level as ‘smoking causes cancer.’ You wouldn’t bet your life on the 3%. Why bet your grandchildren’s?”
Don’t say: “Predictions have been wrong before.”
Say: “In 1970, scientists predicted an ice age. In 1989, they said the Maldives would be underwater by 2018. The Maldives just opened 8 new luxury resorts. Excuse us for being skeptical.”
Don’t say: “Healthy skepticism is scientific.”
Say: “They called Galileo a denier too. Science advances by questioning consensus, not by silencing dissent. Who’s the real anti-science side?”
“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” (Trump, Tweet, 2012)
Explanation:
This is a conspiracy theory claiming climate change was intentionally fabricated by China to damage U.S. economic interests, without scientific or historical basis.
Fact-check:
Climate science dates back to the late 19th century, long before contemporary Chinese economic policies. It’s supported by NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC.
“It used to not be climate change, it used to be global warming… That wasn’t working too well because it was getting too cold all over the place.”
(Trump, Interview with Piers Morgan, 2018)
Explanation:
Trump confuses short-term weather variations with the long-term trend of climate change.
Fact-check:
Global temperatures have consistently risen over decades (NASA/IPCC). Terminology shifted to “climate change” reflecting broader impacts.
Hocky Stick Graph (Wikipedia)
Climate Gate Snippet
“The ocean is going to rise by 1/100th of an inch over 400 years. That’s not our problem.”
(Trump, Rally, December 2015)
Explanation:
Trump significantly understates sea-level rise projections and the associated risks.
Fact-check:
IPCC projects global sea levels could rise approximately 0.3–1.1 meters by 2100, causing severe impacts on coastal communities.
The CIA developed a technique:
Before launching an operation, assume it failed catastrophically.
Then ask: “What went wrong?”
Teams using pre-mortems catch 30% more risks.
This is Prospective Hindsight (Mitchell et al., 1989).
Imagining failure as already happened unlocks different cognitive pathways than “what could go wrong?”
The brain is better at explaining the past than predicting the future.
So you trick it: treat the future as past.
The teams that did well today anticipated the counterattack.
They didn’t ask “what might they say?”
They assumed: “We lost. Why?”
Then they fixed it before it happened.
Before you present, assume it bombed.
Write three reasons why. Fix them.